nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RobertKK

adrag wrote: »

Just a reminder about that missing k from your username me aul pal

Reported, as this is not the first time.

I have work to do so will not be posting in this topic again.
It is sick being likened to the KKK

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

Reported, as this is not the first time.

I have work to do so will not be posting in this topic again.
It is sick being likened to the KKK

And all your arguments have been easily debunked

J_E

http://bocktherobber.com/2013/06/what-exactly-is-the-iona-institute/

Think this post provides one of the best insights into Iona we have so far...and to be honest, it rings alarm bells all over.

Frank Lee Midere

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Says who?

Says anybody who has read a history book. All marriages in Greece and Rome were heterosexual. Gay relationships were acceptable ( in general older male with younger male) but not marriage. Ancient Ireland had divorce but that wasn't the question.

Polygamy is common historically however, so we should consider legalising it for multicultural reasons.

Days 298

mickstupp wrote: »

What makes you think women can't be child abusers?

Sure the man controls the women :rolleyes:

adrag

RobertKK wrote: »

The changes make it easier for two abusers who could be heterosexual men to form a fake marriage and pose as a loving couple, with a stable home to rear a child.

I don't agree with men adopting and fostering children, with no woman there.
The think is in the church now in Ireland, having na child alone with a priest would be a breach of child safety and would be seen as putting an innocent at risk of false allegations.

Abusers will use the adoption and fostering services if they have no criminal record. My view is tough on men, but as a man I think child protection is more important that what a man may want.

I'd leave my kids with someone who's gay before you, your so full of nastiness,hatred and bile and your attempt to mask your unhappiness isn't working, your probably sitting there with your white sheet on in the "CLOSET"
Ps .The missing k

_Redzer_

RobertKK wrote: »

Reported, as this is not the first time.

I have work to do so will not be posting in this topic again.
It is sick being likened to the KKK

Ah yes, run away when things don't go your way and you're not able to explain your views clearly.

Honestly this referendum could be a walk in the park if that's the opposition we're against. They don't even have an argument. It boils down to "I don't like it, just because".

J_E

adrag wrote: »

your probably sitting there with your white sheet on in the "CLOSET"
Ps .The missing k

Right, you can give it over now...

Days 298 wrote: »

Sure the man controls the women

There are many female abusers who are glad the world thinks that and use it to their advantage all the time.

Femme_Fatale

Going on about that person's username needing a third K is utterly proving the point of people who go on about "liberal fascism".
Whatever about his views, he has posted them without abusive language, therefore people should respond in kind in order for their points to hold any credibility.

Daith

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Honestly this referendum could be a walk in the park if that's the opposition we're against. They don't even have an argument. It boils down to "I don't like it, just because".

I suspect the Iona crowd feel slightly out manoeuvred to be honest. Their only argument against same sex marriage was about children.

With the new Family bill that would allow joint adoption (and yes gay people can adopt already) this argument is almost void.

Going to be an interesting year....

adrag

RobertKK wrote: »

Reported, as this is not the first time.

I have work to do so will not be posting in this topic again.
It is sick being likened to the KKK

Your the sick one bud, I'll pray for you mucker

_Redzer_

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Says anybody who has read a history book. All marriages in Greece and Rome were heterosexual. Gay relationships were acceptable ( in general older male with younger male) but not marriage. Ancient Ireland had divorce but that wasn't the question.

Polygamy is common historically however, so we should consider legalising it for multicultural reasons.

Clearly not

Same sex marriage has existed in some form or other throughout history. Men contracted a form of marriage with other men in Ancient Rome and in Greece. At least two Roman Emperors had such marriages. There may also have been such same sex marriages in Egypt. It should be noted that the Emperors who married also married women. This was for the purpose of fulfilling what they would have seen as their duty to procreate. It is also possible that Roman plebeians may have formed same sex unions. Roman law allowed three different types of marriage, one of which was a quite informal arrangement which could be entered into without much formality.

Same sex marriages also existed in many Native American societies. The term "Two Spirit" was used to describe those we would now probably define as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual. In some Native American societies, a man was allowed to marry another man, or a woman to marry a woman. In some cases, a Two Spirit man, who had a wife, could also have a husband.(this also seems to have happened in Ancient Greece).

Same sex marriages also occurred in China and in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa. Marriages between women were happening in parts of Lesotho and Uganda into the 20th century. It should be noted, however that these women did not identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Ancient Ireland did have same sex marriage, a husband who was homosexual and couldn't consummate the marriage adequately was clause for divorce also. It wasn't an issue then.

It's also interesting to not that in countries and in times of history where polygamy is or was legal, homosexuality was not legal. Is heterosexual marriage a gateway to polygamy?

humanji

adrag, don't post in this thread again.

efb

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Going on about that person's username needing a third K is utterly proving the point of people who go on about "liberal fascism".
Whatever about his views, he has posted them without abusive language, therefore people should respond in kind in order for their points to hold any credibility.

I didn't use it but saying all men are potential child abusers and shouldn't be left with children was beyond sexist

_Redzer_

Daith wrote: »

I suspect the Iona crowd feel slightly out manoeuvred to be honest. Their only argument against same sex marriage was about children.

With the new Family bill that would allow joint adoption (and yes gay people can adopt already) this argument is almost void.

Going to be an interesting year....

I didn't know about that. It's gonna be great, you're gonna see the real bile once they've nothing to hide behind.

I'm betting they're using the unnatural, traditional angle, and obviously with a strong helping of baby Jesus on top for good measure.

Absolute cake walk

J_E

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I didn't know about that. It's gonna be great, you're gonna see the real bile once they've nothing to hide behind.

I'm betting they're using the unnatural, traditional angle, and obviously with a strong helping of baby Jesus on top for good measure.

Absolute cake walk

When their funds are finally looked into, that's when the real fun starts...

It's amazing really, about 5-6 years and nobody really has the answer beyond 'someone in America'

Daith

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I didn't know about that. It's gonna be great, you're gonna see the real bile once they've nothing to hide behind.

I'm betting they're using the unnatural, traditional angle, and obviously with a strong helping of baby Jesus on top for good measure.

Absolute cake walk

I wouldn't say cake walk but more hopeful yeah I probably would be.

Jimoslimos

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Should the state be in the business of discriminating against/for anyone who decides to sprinkle themselves in magical 'we're married' fairy dust?

This has always been the most neglected point when gay marriage is discussed. As long as the State affords additional "privileges" (not rights) to couples who marry (gay or straight) then it will ALWAYS be discriminatory. Allowing gay marriage won't change this, but rather open these privileges up to a few more people.

Would I campaign against it? Certainly not
Would I be bothered to turn-up and vote for? Probably no again.

Lawrence1895

I don't really like that crowd, because the in-laws like them, but the in-laws don't like me, which is on mutual consent. That's what I call 'circle of life'

Daith

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This has always been the most neglected point when gay marriage is discussed. As long as the State affords additional "privileges" (not rights) to couples who marry (gay or straight) then it will ALWAYS be discriminatory. Allowing gay marriage won't change this, but rather open these privileges up to a few more people.

How so? It would open marriage up to anyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

Who is it discriminating against?

Phill Ewinn

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.

Jayzus. If I had said this.........

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Jayzus. If I had said this.........

It's different, you've a clear history here.... and it's not looking too progressive either

Billy86

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

What societies allowed homosexual marriages? Genuine question.

Rome for one, though it was a grey area - even though he was as mad as a box of frogs, Nero is a better known example of this.

As best I am aware, Greece did not have gay marriage but they loved them some gay relationships, and it was not rare to have a 'life partner' of the same sex. An important distinction between that and the status of gay relationships today however is that these relationships were seen to have the full support of the Gods - some of the Gods were even gay/bi.

Gay marriage occurred in Galicia around a millenium ago, and likely in Assyria as much as 4,000 years back - many of their texts, even religious, celebrate homosexual relations as being essentially no different than heterosexual ones without so much as an eyelid batted about the matter. There is a lot of evidence same sex marriage was reasonaby common in Mesopotamia, and the Fujian province in China allowed it all the way up to the 17th century Parts of Egypt also had same sex marriage, and some of these traditions were still in practice just barely over 100 years ago.

There is even evidence of gay clergy enacting gay marriages in parts of Europe from around 400 AD onwards in places where it had not been made illegal. It was only around the 12th century that anti-sodomy laws began spreading rapidly across Europe, and it was only at this point that gay marriage really began to be looked upon as a serious threat, rather than a peculiar/frowned upon question, or issue of debate and discussion. Hardly a coincidence that it was also roughly the time of the Crusades and the height of the dark ages.

joseph brand

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Going on about that person's username needing a third K is utterly proving the point of people who go on about "liberal fascism".
Whatever about his views, he has posted them without abusive language, therefore people should respond in kind in order for their points to hold any credibility.

I have never seen this poster on boards before, and the first thing I thought of when I saw the KK was that it reminded me of a certain group. The I read their comments. :eek:

Someone just pointed it out, and I suppose it could be viewed as childish. Childishness is still preferable to bigoted, homophobia from any poster.

Jimoslimos

Daith wrote: »

How so? It would open marriage up to anyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

Who is it discriminating against?

Single people or those who cannot (or stand to lose financially) get married. More than two people in a polygamous relationship, etc

If you can provide a coherent argument why two people (regardless of sexual orientation) are deserving of additional tax breaks because of their undying love for one another then I'm all ears

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

If everyone can marry what sex they want, then surely traditional marriage is destroyed by it, given marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Has traditional marriage been desyroyed because 12 year old girls cannot marry? (They could in 1937)

joseph brand

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia.

Are they opposed to gay marriage because the wedding cake is supposed to have one male and one female figurine?

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.

Those people deserve some sort of medal. They're an inspiration to us all. :rolleyes:

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

How about, almost everyone in the Iona Institute is a conservative, christian homophobe? Would that be fair to say? They're always telling us about how it's written in their 'holy' book. Can't argue with those 2,000 year old tales from desert goat herders.

NuMarvel

They actively campaign against equality for gay people, even when it's pointed out to them that their reasons don't stand up to scrutiny, so yeah, they are homophobic.

And I'm not just talking about marriage equality either. They were against the Civil Partnership Bill a few years ago, and object to religious-run hospitals and schools being subjected to the same anti-discrimination laws as every other employer.

In terms of marriage equality, it's clear their objections aren't logical. Their definition of marriage is one that would also bar a significant number of heterosexual couples from marriage, yet they only wish to apply it to gay and lesbian couples. Logically, if you say that marriage is about, e.g. having and raising kids, then that's a criteria you should apply across the board. But they don't; heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to have kids get a free pass. That's discrimination, pure and simple. And discrimination against people because of their sexuality is properly classed as homophobia.

Phill Ewinn

mango salsa wrote: »

Has traditional marriage been desyroyed because 12 year old girls cannot marry? (They could in 1937)

They could a thousand years ago. Is that where we're going?

J_E

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

They could a thousand years ago. Is that where we're going?

The phrase 'traditional values' is ambiguous, that's all. What is 'traditional' now might have been outlandish as little as 50 years ago.

You know, a lot of heat could easily be avoided by government if they simply gave married and civil partnered couples even ground;

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

At this stage, people are going to want gay marriage either way, but it could have been dealt with a lot better had they done a few simple things.